Sam Harris: Why I am a fucking dick with goggles the size of Texas

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by dave_a

That isn't what I said. Right up above I plainly state he called the *belief system* the motherlode of bad ideas. It is. Objectively only a philosophy major could argue the point.

Lol @ objectively arguing a ridiculous point.

Originally Posted by dave_a

I absolutely agree that the text of the Koran could be neutered the way the text of the Bible has in developed nations, but there is a pretty significant distinction to be made between the Koran and the Bible. I will get to that shortly.

The Bible hasn't been 'neutered' in 'developed nations' (and what is your definition of a 'developed nation' anyway?), it is the same thing that it was. It's just a matter of how it is interpreted. The WBC is not in a 'developed nation' I take it?

Originally Posted by dave_a

So here is the distinction I think fair to make between the crap in the Bible and the crap in the Koran that humans use to justify inhumanity.

The Bible has been divided into the 'Old Testament' which is law/rule based and the 'New Testament' which is more personal/faith based rather than rule/law based.

We can look at the many examples of powerful people citing the bible in the name of all manner of inhumanity, and cherry picking whatever they wanted from the old or new testaments. In the old testament is was cool to stone kids for being mouthy and wives for screwing the neighbor, in the new testament this is no longer cool. Yes, Jesus is coming back and he is gonna be really, really pissed. In fact he is going to turn the oceans into blood he is gonna be so pissed.

The thing is, Jesus decides who is going to hell, not you or me. Jesus is the dude who told people to back off a prostitute and then told her she was a sinner and needed to repent. Sure, he was judgy, but at least he didn't call for her to be stoned to death. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". To me that is the fundamental difference between the Bible and the Koran.

The Koran lacks a 'New Testament'.

It is stuck in the Old testament days where stoning kids and wives is still cool.

Nice story bro, but the evidence is non-existent. In practice even in 'developed countries' there are people blowing up stuff and shooting people in defence of Christianity or Jesus or God.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Hermit

Oh, your first post in this thread. Or are you just me's sock? The latter, methinks. The quality of exposition is the same: dreadfully bad.

Or even Sam Harris' sock?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Watser?

The Bible hasn't been 'neutered' in 'developed nations' (and what is your definition of a 'developed nation' anyway?), it is the same thing that it was. It's just a matter of how it is interpreted. The WBC is not in a 'developed nation' I take it?

The point, I don't think, is not meant to be taken as an absolute, but as a statement about tendencies. If people were saying Christianity never inspires any violence, yeah you'd have a point. That would be a ridiculous statement. And given Christianity's long and bloody history, perhaps the relative peacefulness of modern Christianity perhaps shouldn't be attributed to the religion itself.

But you can't point to the Westboro Baptist Church and say that disproves anything regarding the relative violence of Islam and Christianity. Because one tiny group doesn't show anything about proportions. More importantly, WBC hasn't, to my knowledge, murdered anybody. However disgusting their behavior is (and it is awful), comparing them to terrorists is actually quite unfair. If Muslim fundamentalists took Westboro Baptist Church as their role models, it would massively improve things in many parts of the world.

Nice story bro, but the evidence is non-existent. In practice even in 'developed countries' there are people blowing up stuff and shooting people in defence of Christianity or Jesus or God.

Yes, there are Christians doing that.

But are there more Christians doing that?

And are there more Christians who actively or passively support such activities?

Because that, I believe, is the argument being made - a relative argument, not an absolute one.

[Watser?]

Okay, I believe it is a relative argument, but I question that too. A lot of terrorism has been carried out in the past in Europe by groups of Christians and/or Muslims with a secular ideology: IRA, RAF, ETA, Red Brigades and the Palestinian PFLP, DFLP (Marxist groups, both headed by Palestinian Christians) or Fatah (which started out as a group without a particular ideology other than Palestinian nationalism). I know that they get way more attention, but have groups of Muslim fundamentalists been more active than groups of Christian fundamentalists? Probably but I would like some facts on that. Do they get more support from the average Muslim than Breivik gets from the average European or American? I highly doubt that.

[ChuckF]

Seriously, I think Sam Harris caught some unwarranted self importance from some Dawkins terlet seat, and then after Christopher Hitchens died, Sam Harris was like "oh yeah, that's me now" except he is a mediocre writer and basically just churns out clickbait for Huffpo? And there's some pressure to remain relevant by ginning up some controversy, and the difficulty associated with overcoming being a mediocre writer.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Do they get more support from the average Muslim than Breivik gets from the average European or American? I highly doubt that.

I guess that depends on how you define "average Muslim."

If you just mean that the median Muslim doesn't support it, then probably.

As a percentage of Muslims vs. percentage of Americans/Europeans I highly doubt Breivik's actions get a similar amount of support as certain violent Muslim groups.

And just at a fundamental level, the support for the death penalty for various religious "offenses" (apostasy, blasphemy, proselytizing to Muslims, atheism, etc.) is far higher among Muslims than among Christians. And that makes it hard for me to think they really despise what are essentially violent Islamic supremacy groups to the same extent as Christians do for their equivalent.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Seriously, I think Sam Harris caught some unwarranted self importance from some Dawkins terlet seat, and then after Christopher Hitchens died, Sam Harris was like "oh yeah, that's me now" except he is a mediocre writer and basically just churns out clickbait for Huffpo? And there's some pressure to remain relevant by ginning up some controversy, and the difficulty associated with overcoming being a mediocre writer.

I think this, but not as funnily.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by erimir

I guess that depends on how you define "average Muslim."

If you just mean that the median Muslim doesn't support it, then probably.

As a percentage of Muslims vs. percentage of Americans/Europeans I highly doubt Breivik's actions get a similar amount of support as certain violent Muslim groups.

And just at a fundamental level, the support for the death penalty for various religious "offenses" (apostasy, blasphemy, proselytizing to Muslims, atheism, etc.) is far higher among Muslims than among Christians. And that makes it hard for me to think they really despise what are essentially violent Islamic supremacy groups to the same extent as Christians do for their equivalent.

Maybe not in the US. In Europe? Definitely.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Maybe not in the US. In Europe? Definitely.

Support for Al Qaeda has dropped precipitously in recent years among Muslims. This might be due to their links to ISIS, because ISIS is very unpopular. Maybe now that Al Qaeda is seen as primarily attacking other Muslims, opinion has changed. It could have something to do with changes since Bin Laden's death, but Bin Laden had also dropped significantly in their opinion in the years leading up to his death.

However, just a few years ago, support for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was much, much higher. When Al Qaeda and Bin Laden had merely murdered thousands of Americans, support was anything but negligible.

So yes, currently, Muslims have a negative view of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. But in the years after 9/11, Bin Laden received majority or plurality support among Muslims in some countries, such as Palestine, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria and Pakistan. And he still received significant support as recently as 2011, with support in the double digits in Palestine, Indonesia, Egypt and Jordan.

And of course, keeping in mind that across countries, the average opinion for Al Qaeda as 13% favorable vs. 57% unfavorable, that's not even that unfavorable compared to a lot of things. For comparison, the US Congress gets a lower net favorable rating than that among Americans.

But your claim is that Breivik's actions get a similar amount of support among non-Muslim Europeans.

Maybe you'll find some polls that suggest a high support for deporting Muslims, and take from that the implication that they're alright with Muslims being killed by terrorist acts.

But Breivik shot up an island of mostly ethnically Norwegian children. Good luck finding evidence to support the claim that Europeans support him at numbers anywhere near what polls found for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before his death. I couldn't find any.

[Watser?]

I'm pretty sure I will find out at my brother in law's birthday party next week...

Anyway, Bill Maher does have some figures for us, thank Dawkins.

"Hundreds of millions" of Muslims "support an attack like this," Maher said.

Bill Maher on Paris: "This Is Like Groundhog Day, Except If The Groundhog Kept Getting His Head Cut Off" | Video | RealClearPolitics

[erimir]

Bill Maher is probably wrong on that count if you take a liberal interpretation of "hundreds of millions". Tens of millions though? Maybe even over 100 million or 200 million? I see that as possible.

Because extrapolating from those poll numbers, back in 2003 it would've been quite accurate to say that hundreds of Muslims just in the countries polled - not even the entire Muslim world - had a favorable view of Osama Bin Laden.

I mean, you only need about 13% support among Muslims worldwide to make a statement about hundreds of millions accurate. And among the countries in that 2003 poll, they were getting 46% favorable for Bin Laden. And as recently as 2010/2011 the countries polled showed 22% support.

I agree Bill Maher often makes statements about Islam that are hyperbolic and he's way too pro-Israel. But you know, most people elsewhere would take your statement about European support for Anders Breivik as being just as ridiculous.

And sorry, but I agree with his basic thesis that Islam is significantly more violent in dealing with its critics. Because while 20% support for Osama Bin Laden is not most Muslims, but it's still too many Muslims. And >50% of Pakistani, Egyptian and Palestinian Muslims supporting the death penalty for apostasy doesn't mean most Muslims everywhere support such, but it's still too many Muslims supporting it. And it's hard to make sense of that as being cultural and nothing to do with Islam.

Spin it however you like to try to suggest modern Christianity is just as bad, but it's really not (which is why you accidentally referenced the pretty much completely non-violent WBC* to make Christianity look bad... even though the topic was Islam and violence). Say what you want about what tactics we as non-Muslims should take in dealing with these facts about Muslim society and whether support for such things can be reduced by improved education and economic opportunity. You'll probably find me in agreement about a lot of it. And you won't hear me saying Israel has a right to steal Palestinian land or we should bomb Iran or whatever racist policies you think I'm trying to justify by pointing out these inconvenient facts about Muslims. And certainly there's a lot of racism in the US and Europe and unfair discrimination against Muslims. But I'm not going to pretend that all religions are equal (except insofar that Allah is just as non-existent as YHWH).

*Only thing I could find about them being "violent" is that one of them spat on someone and was charged with assault.

[erimir]

Now this is a party. @jordanbpeterson @EricRWeinstein @RubinReport @joerogan @SamHarrisOrg pic.twitter.com/nrMWVHj7Pg

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) July 2, 2018

Sam Harris does purport to be a liberal, right?

What an

The other assholes there at least haven't been promoted to me as being on the left (although Peterson is still disingenuously promoted by some as not being a conservative despite spending all his time criticizing liberals/leftists).